Schools / Jaipur

Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideSeedling Public School | Best CBSE school in Jaipur | Best school in Jaipur | Jawahar Nagar

Bank St, Sector 4, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302004, India26.88436, 75.83240audited 2026-08-06

13/100

Critically unsafeprovisional band

Critically unsafe. Almost nothing on this road protects a child from traffic on the way to the gate.

Of the five things we check, 3 are missing entirely.

This road · 13

0 · no protectioncomplete protection · 100

Checked twice, independently

Two AI readers on separate accounts · corrections logged in public

Confirmed

Corrected

Unresolved

See how each was judged

Of 153 roads scored so far, this one ranks 90 (worst first). The others scored between 0 and 41.

11.25points earned

84.95points we could see (85%)

13.2%provision

1exposure — local

13.2provision × exposure

→

13SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (85% of the rubric here); the rest is left uncounted rather than guessed. A road with full protective infrastructure scores near 100.

The road in context · derived from public data

Where this road sits

Before the checks: what kind of road this is, how it meets other roads, and what passes it. These lines describe the road and its surroundings — they do not change the score.

Road layout around the gate, drawn from OpenStreetMap — Road layout · drawn from OpenStreetMap · blue dot = school coordinate · red = fatal-crash points (Jaipur Police)

Satellite view of the same area — Satellite · © Google · retrieved 2026-08-13 (capture date not published by the imagery API)

FrontageThe gate opens onto a local street, on its NW side

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 3-leg junction

Street activityno bus stop or shops mapped within 150 m (OpenStreetMap)

Crash recordno road death within 500 m of the gate in the Jaipur Police crash data

Exposure contextLow — 17/100. Describes how much traffic and crash risk passes this road — context only, never part of the road score (method: exposure v1, Data page)

Road layout data © OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL), retrieved 13 Aug 2026 · crash data: Jaipur Police · derivations: `exposure_v1` on the Data page.

What we found · five checks · IRC:SP:32-2023

Five things we checked — and the photo behind each

Each check was read once, then verified blind by a second reader on a separate account. The photo each finding came from sits right beside it. Tap “see how this was judged” for the full reasoning.

Slowing traffic downP1 · Physical speed control

Nothing slows traffic at the gate

No speed hump, table or rumble strip on the approach — vehicles reach the gate at full speed.

Absent

Also cited for this check

0 of 30 points

LevelNone (L0)

Points0 of 30

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈88%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No physical speed-control device (hump, table, rumble strip, transverse-bar marking, or raised crossing) on either gate approach or anywhere in the zone. Gate-frontage road is plain paved/undivided in both directions (hC9J-L23bziQ_h127_f90_road.jpg, hC9J-L23bziQ_h307_f90_road.jpg); perpendicular and traverse approaches confirm the same (sE2p15nJasX5_h207_f90_road.jpg, sE2p15nJasX5_h027_f90_road.jpg, Dso540biJ85X_h127_f90_trav.jpg, Dso540biJ85X_h307_f90_trav.jpg, qwuxy83o-VTv_h039_f90_trav.jpg). Approaches are visible, so absence is observed, not merely unseen.

Getting across the roadP2 · Safe crossing

No safe place to cross

No marked or raised pedestrian crossing at or near the gate.

Absent

Also cited for this check

0 of 25 points

LevelNone (L0)

Points0 of 25

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈85%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No marked pedestrian crossing (zebra/table-top/signalised) and no refuge anywhere near the gate or in the zone. The only white markings present are longitudinal centrelines (qwuxy83o-VTv_h039_f90_trav.jpg, 47tmRLtiD1rI_h131_f90_trav.jpg), not crossings. Gate frontage is clearly visible with no crossing (hC9J-L23bziQ_h127_f90_road.jpg, hC9J-L23bziQ_h307_f90_road.jpg, hC9J-L23bziQ_h035_f90_gate_wide.jpg).

◑

Walking without stepping into trafficP3 · Footpath & separation

A broken walking edge

A walking edge exists but is broken or blocked for most of the frontage.

Partial

Also cited for this check

6.25 of 25 points

LevelMinimal (L1)

Points6.25 of 25

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈80%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Local street; permanent walkable edge is fragmentary and broken along most of the frontage. Boundary walls/railings meet the carriageway with only unpaved sandy shoulders at the gate frontage (hC9J-L23bziQ_h307_f90_road.jpg, hC9J-L23bziQ_h127_f90_road.jpg) and along the qwux school-wall frontage (qwuxy83o-VTv_h039_f90_trav.jpg). Isolated paved fragments exist (paver-block apron at the gate forecourt in hC9J-L23bziQ_h035_f90_gate_wide.jpg; a raised tiled/brick strip on one side in qwuxy83o-VTv_h219_f90_trav.jpg) but do not form a continuous usable edge on either side, so above L1 is not met. Parked vehicles excluded from the built-condition judgment.

Being seen and expectedP4 · Signage & zone identity

No school-zone signs

Drivers get no warning that a school gate is here.

Absent

Also cited for this check

0 of 10 points

LevelNone (L0)

Points0 of 10

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈85%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No school-warning sign, speed-limit sign, or 2023-identity zone asset (transition/zone-start sign, fluorescent yellow-green faces, red-white school-zone markings, beacon hardware) anywhere in the set. The only signage is the school's own name boards (gate pillar and facade) and ordinary centreline markings, none of which is a traffic warning/regulatory device.

◑

The gate itselfP5 · Gate environment

Space and a railing at the gate

A clear setback or railing gives room to gather off the carriageway.

Partial

Also cited for this check

5 of 10 points

LevelBasic (L2)

Points5 of 10

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈88%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Built form: the gate is set back behind a paved forecourt/apron with an iron railing running along the frontage, giving clear off-carriageway assembly space (hC9J-L23bziQ_h035_f90_gate_wide.jpg, hC9J-L23bziQ_h035_f35_gate_zoom.jpg; railing frontage also in sE2p15nJasX5_h280_f35_gate_zoom.jpg). No separately confirmable pedestrian opening and no continuous rail gate-to-crossing (no crossing exists), so L3 is withheld; no marked pick-up/drop-off bay. Level 2.

At the gate

On the frontage road

Along the street

Some captures sit on neighbouring lanes; older ones are shown greyed and were used only for context.

What must be fixed · 5 actions

What would make this road safe — and who owns each fix

Each action maps to a failing check, the relevant IRC:SP:32-2023 clause, and the responsible agency. Agency labels are provisional and correctable through the dispute channel.

01Lifts P1

Install a speed table or twin speed humps within 30 m of the gate

IRC:SP:32-2023 §5.13 · Table 5.1MCD / PWD · provisional

Speed humps near schools roughly halve child-pedestrian injury odds (Tester 2004); 30 km/h calmed zones ≈ 40% fewer casualties (Grundy 2009).

02Lifts P2

Mark a crossing within 20 m of the gate — table-top preferred

IRC:SP:32-2023 §5.4.3MCD / PWD · provisional

Raised crossings cut vehicle speeds at the exact conflict point.

03Lifts P3

Provide a continuous clear walking edge on the school side

IRC:SP:32-2023 §5.4.1MCD / PWD · provisional

A continuous footpath keeps children off the carriageway on the approach, not only at the gate.

04Lifts P4

School-zone warning signs on both approaches with the speed limit

IRC:SP:32-2023 §5.8MCD / PWD · provisional

The zone must announce itself to drivers before the gate.

05Lifts P5

Add space and a marked pick-up bay off the carriageway at the gate

IRC:SP:32-2023 §5.2MCD / PWD · provisional

Children should not step from the gate into a moving traffic lane.

Responsible-agency labels come from the CFI field instrument’s mapping and are correctable via the dispute channel.

Re-audit timeline

2026-08-06Audited

2027-02-06Re-audit due

Every published road is re-read every six months, or as soon as new Street View imagery lands, or on a sustained dispute.

Something wrong on this page?

The entrance, the imagery, a finding — if any of it is wrong, tell us. A dispute pauses this page while the audit is re-verified, and the correction is logged in the public record.

Dispute this audit